So did Atheism + bite the dust?

[bennyboy]

I'm not commenting on the "feminazis," or the people who call them that. I'm commenting on the linguistic use of the term "nazi." Clearly, it is a meaningful linguistic term, with an intent of drawing analogy.

Yes, "nazi" is a meaningful linguistic term, as is the term "feminazi." "Feminazi" has been used by Rush Limbaugh, who "popularized" the term, for women who wanted equality with men, and had the temerity to not quietly accept second-class status. You know, like those uppity blacks who did not quietly accept their place in "separate but equal" bits of America.

I don't care what Rush Limbaugh says or does. However, trying to demonize a word because of who you say made it is just an ad hominem argument.

Your narrative about poor, abused women who just want to be treated equally sounds pretty compelling-- except that's not the kind of feminists the word is talking about. I've been on the receiving end of plenty of feminists who demand equality, who refuse to let men define them, and who expect themselves to be accepted, unconditionally, with loving arms from all of society. And they immediately go on to tell men what real men should be, to call men pigs because they like pretty women, to call them misogynists if they don't want to be the "bottom." They refuse to engage in any argument about gender unless it's understood from the top that men have fucked up the world, and that no matter what the issue, it must be assumed to be a man's fault.

I'm not saying that's all, most, or even many feminists. But they are there, they are disproportionately vocal, and they are fucking annoying bitches. Being born with a penis does not mean I have to eat shit and pretend to like it.

[Dystopia]

Your narrative about poor, abused women who just want to be treated equally sounds pretty compelling-- except that's not the kind of feminists the word is talking about. I've been on the receiving end of plenty of feminists who demand equality, who refuse to let men define them, and who expect themselves to be accepted, unconditionally, with loving arms from all of society. And they immediately go on to tell men what real men should be, to call men pigs because they like pretty women, to call them misogynists if they don't want to be the "bottom." They refuse to engage in any argument about gender unless it's understood from the top that men have fucked up the world, and that no matter what the issue, it must be assumed to be a man's fault.

I totally agree with you on this. I think feminists ought to consider men's opinion and help because having allies benefits your cause. An interesting notion is that women can be sexist against other women as well, yeah - Women can promote sexism like blacks can promote racism against other blacks. Just look at slut-shaming between girls. I don't like the argument that it's men's fault myself because it's society's fault as a whole and there are many men like me that hold a positive view on gender equality, so yeah I become offended if a feminist thinks I'm ignorant on the issue because I'm a man. Using the example of rape - I dislike it when a feminist doesn't consider my point because rape is a crime that I've studied a lot in my 2nd year law school, I know all the myths and all the facts, so I'm not ignorant on the issue (and my opinions highly benefit their cause)

Using your example of being overly vocal - That depends. Do you search social networks a lot? Do you visit Rebecca Watson's channel? If not, it's not very likely you'll hear their voices often. In my country I've never been confronted by feminism like this - Most campaigns are aimed at issues like domestic violence (a problem where I live) or workplace discrimination against women in high profile careers (against pregnant women in particular)

[Violet]

Oh, but they were rude and kinda militant in a poorly defined way, so it's the same thing! Or something!

More than one way to be exclusionary. There really are some people out there who do believe things like this:



That's your feminazi. Not all of which are female, mind.

Now, sure... it could 'just as easily be a troll', but... Poe's Law... this happens enough that 'feminazi' is a thing. Hell, just listening to people at conferences talking about feminism tends to include some absolutely disgustingly sexist misconceptions about men (schrodinger's rapist for instance, also stuff like 'straight white men's lives revolve around sex'), and the term 'privilege' is almost exclusively levied at cisgendered white men (despite the fact that damn near everyone has privileges of some sort, even if they're not the same ones: there are cards that people can play, and most of us have a damn good chance of winning, regardless of the minor benefits of being a guy or a girl)

Between the vehemently aggressive classifying of peoples, vitriolic and sometimes violent persecution of people who do not belong within the 'in' group, the utterly insane reaction to any instance of perceived slut-shaming, the immediate backlash to unpopular views or statements that are identified as attacks before they're half formed, the lack of moderation within the feminist communities allowing 'rabid' and 'toxic' people to continue behaving in this manner under their banner, and the threatening manner in which these people conduct a great deal of 'discourse' (rant-inclined)...?

'Feminazi' is here to stay in its modern sense, and for damn good reason. When feminists finally *coughs*'man up' ( ) and cleanse their movement of these poisonous personalities? That's when feminism will regain respect in an online sense...

Of course, I believe it's far far too late to recover the movement's 'branding'. It'd be a waste of effort at this point, much much easier to 'start' a movement about the equality of all persons (in a social sense).

[dyresand]

I totally agree with you on this. I think feminists ought to consider men's opinion and help because having allies benefits your cause. An interesting notion is that women can be sexist against other women as well, yeah - Women can promote sexism like blacks can promote racism against other blacks. Just look at slut-shaming between girls. I don't like the argument that it's men's fault myself because it's society's fault as a whole and there are many men like me that hold a positive view on gender equality, so yeah I become offended if a feminist thinks I'm ignorant on the issue because I'm a man. Using the example of rape - I dislike it when a feminist doesn't consider my point because rape is a crime that I've studied a lot in my 2nd year law school, I know all the myths and all the facts, so I'm not ignorant on the issue (and my opinions highly benefit their cause)

Using your example of being overly vocal - That depends. Do you search social networks a lot? Do you visit Rebecca Watson's channel? If not, it's not very likely you'll hear their voices often. In my country I've never been confronted by feminism like this - Most campaigns are aimed at issues like domestic violence (a problem where I live) or workplace discrimination against women in high profile careers (against pregnant women in particular)

The only allies they have is the men who are dumb enough to believe them and cater to them other than that us guys to feminists are just trash and well disposable really.

[Violet]

Alice I disagree wholey. Your opinion only makes sense if you narrow your thoughts to the US and few (but not all) other first world nations. Feminism still very much has a place in this world. It could do a lot better if a strong independent woman could give an awakening slap to the face of every tumblr person. (Tumblrian? Tumblrite? Idk)

True, this is. But it's also true that there are some very serious issues in the way of equal status among the sexes everywhere (middle east is going to need a lot of help in this department, and there are definitely other significant problems elsewhere).

Still, I don't think that rebranding would hurt those efforts at all. Infact, the racial equalities included should be better for an overall effort.

Sure would be nice to get things more balanced here at 'home', though.

[GrandizerII]

To this day, I have yet to meet such a feminazi that you guys keep referring to, whether in person or online or in the media. Where can I spot one?

[Violet]

Alice, without specialization results are miserable. A single group claiming to be pro-equality for everyone will not accomplish much without sub-groups that deal with people's issues specifically.

We're close enough to 'there' already... I can see support groups remaining useful within a greater whole, but there's far too much us vs them when you have small groups... LGB vs T, for instance. In the example provided... T had to advocate itself into LGB to get anywhere. There is a great deal of power in consolidation, and consolidation certainly does not mean that the agendas of each involved group cannot be met outside of said consolidation.

Central support for human rights has powers that aren't being effectively tapped into at this moment in time. Subgroups should be able to pitch their wants to the human rights group, which would have considerably more weight to throw around without the associated negative political baggage of any of its constituent groups.

The way I see it, feminism is a sub-sect of Egalitarianism, so is LGBT's rights, black activism, etc, but it's positive for groups to exist that focus on specific groups. I think men's rights groups could be useful if they focused on working with feminists to erase gender roles. (I don't see a reason why someone who is a feminist shouldn't be an egalitarian - It makes sense because feminism is usually anti-racist, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia and pro-multiculturalism - Which are reasonable ideas for an egalitarian society)

I don't see why they shouldn't be either... all I can say is that it's quite evident that not all of them are (and I daresay that not even 'many' of them are... if most feminists are egalitarian: they do a shite job of showing it when they support the man-hating portions of their group), and therefore it shouldn't simply be assumed of feminists that they are egalitarians. Egalitarians being feminists, on the other hand, is by even the simplest of definitions necessary.

The way I see it feminism doesn't even mean activism. It can mean simply that you support certain branches of the movement or a specific feminist celebrity. You can be a feminist and not engage in activism. I like having my feminine traits as a man (I have my masculine as well) and because of that I'll only benefit from feminist activism (Now I can cry at peace and appreciate works of art without being called a pussy)

My dictionary only mentions advocacy, which is synonymical with support or backing.

'Activism' and 'advocacy' aren't one and the same... I'm certainly not supporting the notion that every person who supports a womens' rights agenda is a feminazi...

But many 'advocates' are quiet... whereas activists are anything but. Far too many people take a back seat to support... and this lets other people put words in their mouths and become their spokespersons.

... Feminazis are amongst feminist spokespersons right now.

---

To this day, I have yet to meet such a feminazi that you guys keep referring to, whether in person or online or in the media. Where can I spot one?

I'd recommend trans meetings. Barring that, it's fairly prevalent amongst the greater LGBT community.

Atheism+ (origin of this thread, I guess)... is a great example.

[Dystopia]

Now, sure... it could 'just as easily be a troll', but... Poe's Law... this happens enough that 'feminazi' is a thing. Hell, just listening to people at conferences talking about feminism tends to include some absolutely disgustingly sexist misconceptions about men (schrodinger's rapist for instance, also stuff like 'straight white men's lives revolve around sex'), and the term 'privilege' is almost exclusively levied at cisgendered white men (despite the fact that damn near everyone has privileges of some sort, even if they're not the same ones: there are cards that people can play, and most of us have a damn good chance of winning, regardless of the minor benefits of being a guy or a girl)

- Schrodinger's rapist isn't what you think it means. It doesn't mean all men are potential rapists - Only about 5-6% men will rape during their lives. Schrodinger's rapist tells us that upon meeting an unknown man a woman has zero way of knowing if he is a rapist or not, therefore he is a potential rapist until she knows more about him - And since the damage of rape is higher than trusting a good man (it depends) women should be careful. This is not offensive to me - If I was a woman, I'd think exactly the same - And mind you - Rapists are from all backgrounds so you can't identify one simply by the look or clothes. Schrodinger's rapist tells us that "this is wrong and it needs to be changed" - It is a critique to how rape is more frequent than people may think (and how it can happen to any kind of girl not just attractive ones) and that needs to be changed trough educating people.

- As a white cis male, yeah our lives revolve a lot around sex at least until we hit 40. That is not a myth (but it revolves around other things) - But it is a problem because we give too much importance to sex as men, at least more than we should

- If you think white men still don't have it easier you need to revise your standards. I wouldn't switch being a white man with anyone because I know my life has been easier and I like easy mode (unless it's for stealth games)

Between the vehemently aggressive classifying of peoples, vitriolic and sometimes violent persecution of people who do not belong within the 'in' group, the utterly insane reaction to any instance of perceived slut-shaming, the immediate backlash to unpopular views or statements that are identified as attacks before they're half formed, the lack of moderation within the feminist communities allowing 'rabid' and 'toxic' people to continue behaving in this manner under their banner, and the violently threatening manner in which these people conduct a great deal of 'discourse' (rant-inclined)...?

I'm gonna need more explanation. It's impossible to control everyone who gets in the movement and there are branches of feminism, some more aggressive others more passive - There's no way to foresee what will happen

Feminazi' is here to stay in its modern sense, and for damn good reason. When feminists finally *coughs*'man up' ( Wink ) and cleanse their movement of these poisonous personalities? That's when feminism will regain respect in an online sense...

Of course, I believe it's far far too late to recover the movement's 'branding'. It'd be a waste of effort at this point, much much easier to 'start' a movement about the equality of all persons (in a social sense).

I'm curious - Why do you think a whole movement fixes everything? This is unreasonable - Cancer groups exist.. Well, for cancer, not for auto immune diseases. My government has around 30 ministries because the government itself cannot handle anything (the prime minister), specialization is need. A movement called egalitarianism would have to divide itself between many branches to hit all people's problems, and that would lead us to the division we have today.

True, this is. But it's also true that there are some very serious issues in the way of equal status among the sexes everywhere (middle east is going to need a lot of help in this department, and there are definitely other significant problems elsewhere).

Still, I don't think that rebranding would hurt those efforts at all. Thinking Infact, the racial equalities included should be better for an overall effort.

Sure would be nice to get things more balanced here at 'home', though.

Your proposal is not bad, but it needs further explanation. I don't see why individuals can't specialize. Some feminists are LGBT as well, black feminists are probably black activists, etc.

We're close enough to 'there' already... I can see support groups remaining useful within a greater whole, but there's far too much us vs them when you have small groups... LGB vs T, for instance. In the example provided... T had to advocate itself into LGB to get anywhere. There is a great deal of power in consolidation, and consolidation certainly does not mean that the agendas of each involved group cannot be met outside of said consolidation.

On this I agree but I think people dwell too much on the "my problems are bigger" and that's wrong. A group should address some issues and refrain from minimizing other group's issues.

Central support for human rights has powers that aren't being effectively tapped into at this moment in time. Subgroups should be able to pitch their wants to the human rights group, which would have considerably more weight to throw around without the associated negative political baggage of any of its constituent groups.

Many people dislike the UN. Human rights groups are not enough since HR are a worldwide conception to be applied everywhere and every nation should enable measures to fulfil those rights - With specializations. The same way we don't have One law ruling over all, we have over 1000+ laws regulating different aspects of social life

I don't see why they shouldn't be either... all I can say is that it's quite evident that not all of them are (and I daresay that not even 'many' of them are... if most feminists are egalitarian: they do a shite job of showing it when they support the man-hating portions of their group), and therefore it shouldn't simply be assumed of feminists that they are egalitarians. Egalitarians being feminists, on the other hand, is by even the simplest of definitions necessary.

I disagree with you on that but we've probably had different experiences. In my country feminism is seen as being empowering and an answer to sexist conducts (that still happen, a good example is firing pregnant women and prohibiting women from getting pregnant after getting the job), I don't see a lot of problems with it. America has it's fair share of nutjobs but America is a bad example (sorry) for the rest of the world, in feminism and any other issue.

My dictionary only mentions advocacy, which is synonymical with support or backing.

'Activism' and 'advocacy' aren't one and the same... I'm certainly not supporting the notion that every person who supports a womens' rights agenda as being a feminazi...

But many 'advocates' are quiet... whereas activists are anything but. Far too many people take a back seat to support... and this lets other people put words in their mouths and become their spokespersons.

... Feminazis are amongst feminist spokespersons right now.

People who remain quiet like me dislike social networks because they are annoying. they make me sick and are full of retarded boring monotonous people everywhere. In my dictionary it says primarily support and belief in gender quality (which extends to men and trans* folks by definition) - Culturally and historically it has always been that, but even in the 70s, 60s, 50s and 1920s there were women who hated men and their voices were felt at the moment. Do you know that back in the day people were having the same reaction to feminism we are having right now (by calling them radicals)? It's curious don't you think?

Alice, I identify primarily as an egalitarian - But in this context I think it's cool to dislike or hate feminism because of Rebecca Watson and so on; and I don't line up with the cool crowd (I like being controversial) - I've also witnessed scenes of violence and sexism against women (yesterday I saw domestic violence in public street) and it's too disturbing for me to say that women already have it equal. I also like my feminine side so, I don't have much to lose. If it wasn't for feminism, men wouldn't be have it easier displaying feminine traits (still frowned upon, but a little more acceptable)

[Losty]

Small edit - Losty, I know you don't like gender roles as criteria to define genders - In my opinion, until a single role persists a movement like feminism will not hurt anyone. I don't want people to stop being masculine or feminine, but I want people to be able to choose and not get characteristics lumped into their gender. This is actually important to you since you have a sexuality view that is considered by society as slutty and "impure", so you get what I'm saying

I wasn't sure whether to be offended or impressed, so I just lol'd

I fit a pretty general stereotype of a woman's gender role. I am quiet and polite. I almost never swear (though I having been swearing more often it's like all you heathens are rubbing off on me). I love to do housework and cook. I will mother hen anyone who seems even remotely in need of it. I feel most comfortable when I'm doing what I'm asked and avoiding conflict. I won't take a picture with bad hair and I really like to look pretty in a modest classy way.
In general, I won't talk to people about sex. If it's brought up, after recovering from near death by blushing, I will change the subject and pretend it was never brought up. There's an inner slut that burns inside of me, but it almost never sees light outside of Internet forums and intimately close friends. It's easy to show you guys all the parts of me that I usually hide. In person, you would probably think me a prude.

That being said, you're right, I hate when people try to enforce their ideas of how a certain gender should behave onto other people. If you tell me you're a man I will accept that, if you tell me you're a woman I will accept that, as well as genderfluid or a variety of other options. I won't look at you or how you behave and proceed to tell you who you are.

And somehow I feel like I'm no longer discussing whatever this thread was supposed to be about at all.

---

To this day, I have yet to meet such a feminazi that you guys keep referring to, whether in person or online or in the media. Where can I spot one?

Tumblr -_-

/thread

[Dystopia]

I wasn't sure whether to be offended or impressed, so I just lol'd

I wasn't trying to offend you

I fit a pretty general stereotype of a woman's gender role. I am quiet and polite. I almost never swear (though I having been swearing more often it's like all you heathens are rubbing off on me). I love to do housework and cook. I will mother hen anyone who seems even remotely in need of it. I feel most comfortable when I'm doing what I'm asked and avoiding conflict. I won't take a picture with bad hair and I really like to look pretty in a modest classy way.
In general, I won't talk to people about sex. If it's brought up, after recovering from near death by blushing, I will change the subject and pretend it was never brought up. There's an inner slut that burns inside of me, but it almost never sees light outside of Internet forums and intimately close friends. It's easy to show you guys all the parts of me that I usually hide. In person, you would probably think me a prude.

There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's who you are. The problem is when girls are taught directly or indirectly/subtly that they have certain standards to meet and end up behaving a certain way because of that. This is something that makes people's lives much harder than we might think - Let's just look at how women are supposed to be docile and passive - This can look fine, but if we apply it to jobs and a male dominated field where strong asserting behaviour and frequent wage negotiations are needed, chances are the man is better fit in the gender role spectrum to deal with it and the woman is less - Which leads to disadvantages. My point - If you enjoy being like that, it's a valid choice.

I fit some male stereotypes as well - I dress in masculine clothes, mostly dark coloured (too dark coloured in fact), I have an occasional unshaven beard, I have short hair and my physical behaviour in my daily life is masculine - The way I generally act resembles confidence, strength, prudence and sometimes aggressiveness. I am, to an extent, hyper-sexual, I love bringing my wild masculine side in bed and being rough (though I have sexual desires that are not masculine and are frowned upon), I generally like things that are accepted for men to love - Technology, computers, videogames; I am also in a college degree that is composed mostly by females but on the other side most higher level positions are occupied by men, so men get the bigger part.

But I also have a more feminine side - I enjoy art, namely music and cinema, to the point it makes me drop a tear on occasion; I like going to museums; I like being sensitive to people and feeling other people's pain (and expressing it); sometimes I like going to clothes shop and check clothes for me (I love men's shoes, damn I have pretty shoes!); I generally don't like the way men are supposed to behave (manning up and competing between each other, pressure to be a part of the boys club, etc.); I don't like sports, etc.

When looking for a partner I don't mind feminine traits, but I like some masculine traits on girls, for example aggressiveness, independence and a considerable amount of cultural knowledge (discussions of politics and other issues are still more associated with men than with women) --> I also have a weird fetish for girls dressed in black, but that's because I'm a weirdo

That being said, you're right, I hate when people try to enforce their ideas of how a certain gender should behave onto other people. If you tell me you're a man I will accept that, if you tell me you're a woman I will accept that, as well as genderfluid or a variety of other options. I won't look at you or how you behave and proceed to tell you who you are.

Trans* identities are one of the most important social issues in society. In my opinion, trans* people are the most discriminated against group next to poor people. I identify as a male and I'm comfortable as such, but that's just me.

And somehow I feel like I'm no longer discussing whatever this thread was supposed to be about at all.

As if that never happened in AF. Derailing rules in AF are the most benevolent laws I've ever seen.